Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
My advice would definitely be to email functionarie...@lists.wikimedia.org. Keeping them in the loop is very, very helpful. Richard Symonds Wikimedia UK 0207 065 0992 Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). *Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents.* On 27 January 2013 23:43, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote: This happens all the time. It sounds like their attempt to alter the content was thwarted. If not, alert a few admins privately, or send more specific info to the functionaries-en mailing list so they can keep a watchful eye on the articles in question. And talk to the offender and explain what they did contravenes Wikipedia guidelines. In my opinion you should report it to an ethics board privately, if you believe they did (intend to) break the industries ethical guidelines. Even if they acted improperly, by intimidating someone, you need to follow appropriate protocols. Two wrongs dont make a right. It sounds like you can inform press without breaking any confidences. Tell them the account name or IP and let them independently guess who it is. John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Jan 22, 2013 12:09 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: A not really hypothetical question: Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company and decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one of your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on your pay role to join you in this effort). Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long standing editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty figures out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than vanish from Wikipedia. What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
This happens all the time. It sounds like their attempt to alter the content was thwarted. If not, alert a few admins privately, or send more specific info to the functionaries-en mailing list so they can keep a watchful eye on the articles in question. And talk to the offender and explain what they did contravenes Wikipedia guidelines. In my opinion you should report it to an ethics board privately, if you believe they did (intend to) break the industries ethical guidelines. Even if they acted improperly, by intimidating someone, you need to follow appropriate protocols. Two wrongs dont make a right. It sounds like you can inform press without breaking any confidences. Tell them the account name or IP and let them independently guess who it is. John Vandenberg. sent from Galaxy Note On Jan 22, 2013 12:09 AM, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: A not really hypothetical question: Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company and decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one of your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on your pay role to join you in this effort). Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long standing editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty figures out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than vanish from Wikipedia. What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
[Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
A not really hypothetical question: Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company and decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one of your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on your pay role to join you in this effort). Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long standing editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty figures out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than vanish from Wikipedia. What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian The Wikipedia Open Textbook of Medicine www.opentextbookofmedicine.com ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
On 21 January 2013 13:09, James Heilman jmh...@gmail.com wrote: What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? The long-standing Internet practice is to publish threatening email as being in the public interest. Wikipedia isn't the platform for that. Given the indeterminate parameters of the original question, it would depend if the editor in question felt that this was sufficiently in the general public interest. The (not-so-) hypothetical editor in question could then reasonably leave it to other less-pissed-off editors to calmly sort out what should be done in terms of coverage on the wiki itself. This is of course all (not-so-) hypothetical. - d. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
A not really hypothetical question: Let say one is the director of marketing at a 16 billion dollar company and decides to come to Wikipedia in an attempt to alter its coverage of one of your companies key products (which has been hit fairly hard lately by the evidence). One also invites 50 of your best friends (most of which are on your pay role to join you in this effort). Let say you are trying to do it anonymously but both you and your associates send out a whole bunch of intimidating emails to a long standing editor. Than this long standing editor without any real difficulty figures out who you are (as you sort of did email him). You than vanish from Wikipedia. What if this long standing editor decided to either hand the story over to the press or write something up for publication in a peer review journal as said editor does not stand for intimidation easily? And this long standing editor believes that the world / patients might be better off if this behavior become more widely known. How would the Wikimedia community apply the above two policies / guidelines (WP:COI and WP:OUTING)? -- James Heilman MD, CCFP-EM, Wikipedian Our prohibitions against outing of the personal information of other editors refers to on-wiki accusations and guesses. You can use that information freely with respect to private communications with administrators or the arbitration committee regarding socking and conflict of interest issues. On-wiki communications regarding conflict of interest editing is OK but should omit such personal information. If Wikipedia processes are ineffective in dealing with the problem, publication off-wiki, particularly in a peer-reviewed journal, is acceptable in my view as assuming power over an issue and information concerning it implies a responsibility to deal with it adequately. However, I hope you will attempt to use our processes before you do something that may be damaging to our public image. Please give us a chance. For one thing, if there are grounds, our checkuser crew can often ferret out sock puppets and where they originate; you would have to promptly, probably before any legal controversy is ripe or before a court, obtain a court order to get that information on your own if editing was done using an account name. A note regarding evidence that you might need in defending a possible libel action: edits containing personal identifying information may be deleted or suppressed under our policies and can be retrieved later only under the terms of a court order, so, obviously, get them before they are hidden. Fred Bauder ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
Re: [Wikimedia-l] COI versus OUTING
Wikipedia's policies are meant to protect and further the goals of the project, and to offer what little safeguard they can against undue harm to good faith participants. People who try to undermine the project, or act in a way antithetical to its goals, or themselves attempt to cause harm to good faith participants should find no protection from its rules. That's how I'd look at it from an inside Wikipedia perspective. But the question is really one of personal ethics, and I think viewed that way the answer is clear. You have no obligation to these people to continue helping them maintain the secrecy and anonymity of their actions, which you (and most) find ethically suspect. They are trying to mislead the public for profit, using subversive methods, and they deserve at a minimum to have that made public. ___ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
